Jail sought for Priory developer

An application by Dublin City Council to jail developer Thomas McFeely over breach of court orders relating to fire safety works at the Priory Hall apartment complex in Donaghmede will be heard by the High Court next Thursday.

The President of the High Court, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns, however refused the Council’s application to vacate his orders requiring the council to pay alternative accommodation, storage and rent differential costs of 240 residents evacuated from the complex pending completion of the fire safety works.

When the judge asked what would happen to the residents if he vacated the orders, Conleth Bradley SC, for the Council, said that was for politicians to address as the council’s responsibility related only to fire safety. Perhaps the law needs to be changed, he added.

The judge said he didn’t see matters that way, he was “mystified” by the application to vacate his orders and could not have reconciled making the “draconian” evacuation order last month unless he was satisfied there were “lifeboats provided for”.

Perhaps the council had believed its threat to seek evacuation would “bring Mr McFeely to heel” but that had not happened, he said.

The council will now appeal the orders to the Supreme Court and Mr Justice Kearns, who remarked the Council’s handling of the situation “beggars belief”, said it could do appeal “with my blessing”. He refused to put any stay on the orders pending appeal and stressed they continue pending further court orders.

The judge said the council, in applying last month to evacuate the residents, had “thrown a torpedo” into Priory Hall with the residents as “collateral damage” and he could not understand how the Council could say it has no responsibility for them.

When the judge asked “with some trepidation” what the Council proposed to do now, Mr Bradley said it had brought its evacuation application as a fire authority and had no responsibility in law for the housing and other costs of the residents.

While he did not wish to sound inhumane, the costs of the residents was “a political issue” and the council was meeting with the Department of the Environment about matters. The council manager would also meet with the residents on Monday to discuss the short and long term situation.

Perhaps the law needed to be changed and this case would achieve that, counsel said. He added he had visited the complex and while it was appalling to see the situation there, the Council had the comfort of knowing, if there was a fire, there was no risk to people’s lives. When the judge asked whether another contractor had been hired to complete the works, Mr Bradley said he could not say.

Earlier, the judge agreed reluctantly to adjourn an application by the Council, issued yesterday evening, for attachment and committal of Mr McFeely for breach of court orders relating to the fire safety works.

The judge last week directed Mr McFeely, his Coalport Building Company Ltd and 21 workers to leave Priory Hall after the Council sought their removal over lack of progress in those works. Mr McFeely denied any breach of court orders concerning the works but the judge found there was a breach and also said the Council could bring committal proceedings.

Yesterday, Martin Hayden SC, for Mr McFeely, sought an adjournment of the committal proceedings because his client was not given the statutory two days notice of such applications and he wanted to provide an affidavit. The judge said Mr McFeely must have been aware such an application might brought and added he court had already made a finding of breach of its orders.

After Mr Bradley said he would not object to the adjournment on grounds related to the time limits involved, the judge agreed to adjourn the matter to Thursday.

He also agreed to vary a freezing order on Mr McFeely’s accounts to allow him pay his lawyers and a fire safety consultant. Mr Bradley objected, saying he was concerned about the taxpayer who would like some of that money as about €350,000 had been spent to date by the Council addressing issues at Priory Hall.

John O’Donnell SC, for some residents, said they were very concerned about their future, especially how they would be accommodated coming up to Christmas. The residents were “in real and present danger” and had been given no comfort by the Council.

The residents were concerned the Council brought these proceedings when it knew Mr McFeely had breached six previous undertakings to carry out remedial works at Priory Hall, had been prosecuted at the District Court and his chances of complying with works orders were remote, counsel said. His clients’ rights to private and family life and to peaceful enjoyment of their properties had been breached.

There was no reason the Council, in seeking to evacuate the premises, would not have worked out the residents would have to be accommodated elsewhere, he added. Counsel also sought Mr McFeely’s statement of means saying the residents did not believe his claims of having no money to pay for works by another firm. Mr McFeely had completed remedial works at another development at Clongriffin when ordered by the court to do so, he said. The judge refused that application.

Hugh Mohan, for 85 residents, said some would have no accommodation in a week and any move by the council to vacate the court orders should have been made on notice. His clients also wanted to see a Building Control report related to Priory Hall but the judge said he could not make that order as the case related only to fire safety issues.

The court last month ordered fire safety works must be completed over a five week period concluding on November 28th but fire safety officer Donal Casey said last week there was inadequate progress in works to the external wall structure although works had been carried out on some 40 apartments and internal structures.